1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-06569
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 2, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on February 17, 2012.  On January 7, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
for Applicant.  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines
(AG), effective within the Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on February 3, 2015.  He answered
the SOR in writing (Answer) on February 21, 2015, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge.  The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) received
the request soon thereafter, and I received the case assignment on May 4, 2015.
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on May 5, 2015, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on June 3, 2015.  The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 4, which
were received without objection.  Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted
2
Exhibits (AppXs) A and B, which were received without objection.  DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing (TR) on June 11, 2015.  I granted Applicant’s request to keep
the record open until July 6, 2015, to submit additional matters.  On June 15, 2015, he
submitted Exhibit C, which was received without objection.  The record closed on July 6,
2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for
access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in
Subparagraphs 1.b. and 1.c. of the SOR, with explanations.  He denied the factual
allegations in Subparagraph 1.a. of the SOR.  He also provided additional information to
support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is a 35 year old, and has been working for a defense contractor “for 15
years.”  (TR at page 20 line 3 to page 22 line 25.)  This is his first time applying for a
security clearance.  (Id.)  About ten years ago, he lost “his high school sweetheart . . .
[to] cancer.”  (TR at page 23 lines 1~15.)  He attributes the alleged financial difficulties
to her death; as he dropped out of college, and two of the three allegations relate to his
college debt.  (TR at page 20 line 3 to page 23 line 15.)  He has now returned to
college, lives within his means, and has a positive monthly cash flow.  (Id, and TR at
page 34 line 16 to page 35 line 19.)
1.a.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor A for a past-due debt in the
amount of about $189.  This debt is “paid in full,” as evidenced by correspondence from
Creditor A’s successor to this debt.  (TR at page 23 line 16 to page 25 line 3, and
Answer at pages 2~5.)
1.b.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor B, for past tuition at his
current college, in the amount of about $9,473.  He has set up a payment plan with his
college by which he made an initial payment of $1,000, and is making monthly
payments of $150.  (TR at page 25 line 4 to page 29 line 23.)  This is evidenced by
correspondence from his college.  (AppX A.)  I find this to be a good-faith effort to
address this debt.
1.c.  Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor C, his college, for past
tuition in the amount of about $1,901.  He is now current with this tuition as evidenced
by correspondence from his college.  (TR at page 30 line 12 to page 31 line 21, at page
36 line 2 to page 37 line 12, AppX A at pages 7~8, and AppX B.)
3
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG).  In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law.  Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process.  The administrative judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision.  According to AG
Paragraph 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.”  The administrative judge must consider all
available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.
Paragraph 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for
access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”  In
reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical
and based on the evidence contained in the record.  Likewise, I have avoided drawing
inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.15,
the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut,
explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department
Counsel. . . .”  The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a
favorable security decision.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.  This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours.  The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information.  Decisions include, by necessity, consideration
of the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information.  Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.”  See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).
4
Analysis
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in Paragraph 18:
Failure or inability to live within one=s means, satisfy debts, and
meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment,
or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information.  An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds.
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns.  Under
Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  Applicant has had difficulty meeting his
financial obligations.  However, I find two countervailing Mitigating Conditions that are
applicable here.  Under Subparagraph 20(b), it may be mitigating where “the conditions
that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g. . . .
a death . . . ), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.”
Applicant’s past-due indebtedness is directly attributed to his “sweetheart’s” dying from
cancer.  Under Subparagraph 20(d), it may also be mitigating where “the individual
initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”
Applicant has made a good-faith effort to resolve all of the alleged past-due debts.
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances.  Under Paragraph 2(c), the ultimate determination of
whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense
judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person
concept.
The administrative judge should also consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at AG Paragraph 2(a): 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
5
I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  Applicant is well thought of in the
workplace.  (AppX C.)  The record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts as
to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.  For this reason, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his Financial
Considerations, under the whole-person concept.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge